Sadly, Obama "listened" to us but chose to ignore us.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.

We don't need a new exclusivity provision - the current one is already sufficient, as a Bush 41 judge just affirmed.

In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

The FISA court already has that responsibility, but Bush illegally ignored it. The new law adds nothing.

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted.

Bush appointed Inspectors General whose job is to cover up his crimes. How is that a "real mechanism for accountability?"

It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues.

Federal judges are perfectly capable of evaluating classification issues. The Bush 41 judge declared he would review the government's secret evidence in secret - but insisted he would review it.  In fact Federal judges are better than the Executive Branch because they are independent of the President (and have life tenure). Bush wouldn't even give top lawyers at his own Justice Department the security clearance they needed to review the NSA wiretapping program.

So why did Obama choose to give Bush immunity rather than uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law?

Kos believes it's just the failed politics of fear:

Bottom line is that Obama wants to cave on FISA not because of "moving to the center" concerns, but because they are afraid of television ads claiming Obama is inviting terrorists over for BBQ. It's the same crappy-style ads that failed miserably in the IL-14 special election (and Foster went on to vote against the FISA capitulation) and have gotten little traction this year. But the Obama campaign thinks that by capitulating, it'll "take the issue off the table", as if Republicans need any excuse to accuse Democrats of being weak on terror.

"Taking the issue off the table" led Democrats to vote for Bush's disastrous tax cuts, and most still lost that year (like Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland). It led them to vote for Bush's disastrous war, yet that didn't stop Republicans from morphing Cleland into Osama Bin Laden. And of course, no matter how they vote on FISA, Republicans will still accuse Democrats of being weak on terror. It's pretty much the only thing they've got left in their toolbox, no matter how ineffective it has become.

But in any case, Obama's FISA capitulation has nothing to do with "moving to the center", and everything with being afraid of the ads Republicans will run.

I think politics played a role, but I think Obama is getting lousy advice from "experts" who don't know what they're talking about, judging from the misinformation in Obama's own statement.

Who are those "experts"? People like Greg Craig. And those "experts" need to be fired before they do any more damage to Obama's campaign.

Update 1: Marcy Wheeler shreds the Justice Department IG excuse:

the IG report on politicization at DOJ found that Mike Elston and Esther McDonald had broken the law. But it admitted that DOJ was unable to hold them accountable for their actions--because too much time had elapsed, because they had both snuck off to sinecures in swank Republican law firms, and because the Inspector General really couldn't hold them accountable directly.

So next year, when we get this vaunted IG report on the illegal wiretapping, it'll include a passage that says:

However, because the five year statute of limitations has passed and because former President Bush, former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, former Chief of Staff Andy Card, and former Vice President Cheney are no longer in office, the culprits are no longer subject to legal consequences for their actions. Nevertheless, we recommend the American people consider the findings in this report should George Bush ever tries to run for President again.

Nah. I don't call that accountability either.

Exactly.